|
|
 | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.announce, Willy Tschager wrote: snipped (...) direct from the ToU: "Additionally, you specifically acknowledge and agree that LUGNET and its owners, operators and/or related entities are not liable for any defamatory, offensive, or illegal (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| IMHO, It would take a huge amount of processing power to analyze the text of every single post. THat's why human brains do it here, not computers. And what happens when you analyze this sentence: I was trying to finish it, but the earthquake smashed (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| Just my two cents... But if your vocabulary is limited to the colorful metaphors maybe you should study a little... It's not that hard. And if "all hell breaking loose" is one e-mail from Larry then perhaps you should just relax. What could have (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) You missed the point of my post Lenny. I contend that not everyone thinks that the word you mentioned above is "bad" in every context. There shouldn't be a silver bullet policy that put you into "bad" territory just for writing a word. In (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) A well crafted set of regular expressions would make this simple evasion harder to do. (...) IMHO regional filters would be difficult to do effectively. You'd need to know what region the reader is in as well as the region the poster was from (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| In lugnet.general, David Koudys wrote: <some good stuff that I can't quote without getting censored> To me the suggestion that the current policy in not censorship is ridiculous. It's like the bully that grabs your arm and make you hit yourself, (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| Now this is an interesting idea. It seems like a simple way to deal with George Carlin's 7 dirty words. Turn the filter on by default. If people want to turn it off, let them : ) (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I was thinking about the 'various ways' that people could get around the built-in filter (if there was one). Then I started thinking that if the filter turns specific words into #%##$, and people know that, so they type S P A C E D words to (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I wasn't the least offended. In fact, I thought it was a misspelling of something (which I didn't try to decode) when I read the post. (...) I agree with you. There's no difference between admins cancelling and admins threatening action if the (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I guess I'd probably change the phrasing Larry used here-- Posting profanity IS a violation of the TOU, no if's about it. This speaks it better: (...) No two ways about it, you're already in violation. Question is whether or not you want to (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
|
